The Weirding Way: From
the science fiction novel Dune, by Frank Herbert

The basic principle behind the weirding way is that, as
Farad'n Corrino says, "My mind affects my reality." A
user of the weirding way has to know that the action he or she
"wants" to perform has already been performed. For
example, to imagine oneself behind an opponent at the current
moment in time; when trained well, this knowledge will place you
at the spot desired.—From Wikipedia

Whether held consciously or implicitly, everyone operates from an
underlying set of ideas — a philosophy — that has
practical consequences. Each person's philosophic system rest upon a
foundation which presumes a position about the fundamental nature of
reality, and throughout human history there have been two dominant
and opposing schools of thought:

The Primacy of Existence: This holds that reality
is an absolute, existing independent of conscious thought, and
therefore it is the function of the human mind to acquire knowledge
by discovering and identifying the nature of this external reality
in order to be able to then manipulate it towards productive ends —
or as Francis Bacon put it, "Nature, to be commanded, must
be obeyed."† Here, existence precedes consciousness.

The Primacy of Consciousness: This is the belief
that the "reality" that is perceived with one's
senses is not external and independent, but is instead actually the
creation of consciousness. This view implies that knowledge is
acquired through introspection and that the nature of existence can
be shaped by thoughts and beliefs, or as John Lennon put it,
"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination." Here,
consciousness precedes existence.

Many people live their lives, failing to reflect upon this issue
and stake out an explicit metaphysical stance on the nature of
reality. Nevertheless, the daily choices that they make are dependent
upon one or the other of these positions. Often people
compartmentalize various aspects of their lives, allowing
themselves to inconsistently apply one methodology to certain areas
while adopting the opposite method for others. However, every choice
to act still rests upon some implicit belief in reality's fundamental
nature.

Those who consistently subscribe to the primacy of existence
hold the scientific method inviolable, recognizing it as one of the
principal tools for the exploration of the world and a means of
ascertaining truth, while those who adopt a primacy of
consciousness viewpoint believe that by altering the content of
their mind, they can alter (or avoid) the nature of reality. For
them, the scientific method is not merely useless, but utterly wrong
in its approach.

The renowned engineer,
William J. LeMessurier, was hired to provide an innovative
structural design for the NYC Citicorp Center building which was
completed in 1977. In 1978, prompted by a student's inquiry
pertaining to aspects of the design, LeMessurier took another look
at his calculations and at that time a new thought came to him to
check a unique wind loading pattern that had not been required by
the applicable codes. To his surprise, he discover that under
these new conditions the structure was underdesigned! Now this, in
itself, did not pose a serious problem as structural components
are typically designed with a 2:1 safety factor which would have
dealt with this new condition. But LeMessurier had also recently
learned that, without his knowledge at the time, the steel
subcontractor, in order to reduce costs, had redesigned the frame
using bolts rather than welds, and these two factors now placed
the building in danger. He immediately began further
investigations which resulted in the discovery that his design
team had also treated certain critical components not as columns,
but as trusses which did not require the normal safety factor.
Taken together, he realized that the building faced a very real
risk of collapse in a high wind condition.

Despite his reputation
being on the line, LeMessurier immediately contacted the
architect, a consulting engineer, and the building owners, fully
informed them of the situation, and set into motion a plan to
rectify the crisis. The story of how this was accomplished is a
fascinating tale that can be read in detail at the link above. But
what is most interesting is that all parties recognized the
serious nature of what needed to be done, and worked
cooperatively, without recrimination, in order to insure a
positive outcome. And as the article's author comments, "The
crisis at Citicorp Center was noteworthy in another respect. It
produced heroes, but no villains; everyone connected with the
repairs behaved in exemplary fashion ."

This is an example of the primacy of existence
in action, where reality is recognizes as an absolute, to be faced
head on, not avoided. Each party maintained a clear focus on the
facts as they were uncovered, and as new knowledge was
ascertained, actively acknowledged and pursued the consequences.
Emotions of fear or anger were suppressed as being unproductive to
the goal of averting a disaster and saving lives. Without a doubt,
this is a story about heros.

On January 28, 1986 the
Challenger Space Shuttle was launched and a little over a minute
later, exploded. Subsequently, the Rogers Commission was formed by
President Reagan, and charged with investigating the circumstances
of this disaster. Richard Feynman, the Nobel Prize-winning
physicist, was one of the commission members, and the tale of his
involvement in determining the cause of the accident is recounted
in the fascinating story, "Mr.
Feynman Goes to Washington: Investigating the Space Shuttle
Challenger Disaster."

As Feynman describes
it, while the other commission members were being led around as a
herd and presented with information that NASA management wished
them to see and hear, he was off conducting his own independent
investigation and acquiring a unique perspective on what had
occurred. When it came time for the commission to submit a final
report, Feynman refused to sign off on it unless his own findings
were included, which subsequently made it in as a ten
page appendix.

It was Feynman who
discovered that the direct cause of the explosion was due to joint
rotation in the rocket booster sections that were deforming the
O-ring seals and allowing hot gas to escape, coupled with a seal
resiliency failure due to improper launch under abnormally cold
conditions. However, of greater importance was the revelation that
the joint and seal problems had been identified early during the
Shuttle's design, and yet had never been adequately addressed.
Forensic studies conducted after each mission had revealed many
cases of charred O-rings, where partial failure of the seals had
occurred, and yet the missions continued. As Feynman determined,
NASA management treated each case of partial O-ring failure which
did not end up compromising the mission as evidence that the
problem was of less concern than design specs. indicated, and
therefore, "certification criteria used in Flight
Readiness Reviews often develop a gradually decreasing
strictness." When O-ring erosion was observed one-third
the radius, NASA management determined that this indicated the
rings had "a safety factor of three." But as
Feynman so obviously pointed out, "The O-rings of the
Solid Rocket Boosters were not designed to erode. Erosion was a
clue that something was wrong. Erosion was not something from
which safety can be inferred."

When asked to estimate
the Shuttle's probability of vehicle failure and loss of life,
engineers responded with values in the neighborhood of 1 in 100,
while management reported 1 in 100,000. Feynman asked: "Since
1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a Shuttle up each
day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could properly
ask 'What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the
machinery?'" As Feynman points out in his book, the
answer was that while the engineers were applying standard
statistical metrics to arrive at their estimates, NASA management
was working backwards in their models to arrive at the
predetermined number required by political necessity to appease
Congress and keep funding flowing.

This highlight only some of the fantastic
rationalizing that was being done by NASA management,
demonstrating a clear case of the primacy of consciousness
in action. While the engineers were grounded in science and had a
clear grasp of the nature of the problems and the risks they were
dealing with, program managers were completely disconnected from
reality, having replaced respect for facts with their internal
wishes for desired outcomes — an approach which inevitably
led to truly disastrous results.

The
Age of Aquarius:

These two examples dramatize the consequences of adopting
different philosophies with respect to reality which is,
in fact, independent of our hope, dreams, wishes, desires, or
intentions. Comprehend and incorporate the laws of nature, along with
the relevant facts, into one's actions, and goals are achievable.
Ignore them at your peril. And while most of our personal day-to-day
decisions do not rise to the level of life or death, the success or
failure of the outcomes remains very much a product of those
underlying premises.

The sad truth is that the primacy of consciousness world
view has been adopted by a majority of people and drives actions in
many areas towards sub-optimal, and sometimes extremely harmful
outcomes. In the conduct of their lives, many individuals mindlessly
adopt all sorts of misguided fantasies that, to any thinking person,
are obviously disconnected from reality. Some read horoscopes
based upon the alignment of planets at the moment of their birth and
then adjust their daily activity to avoid hinted-at pitfalls or to
achieve a hazily-defined positive outcome. Some pay fortune tellers
to advise them about life-altering decisions that should be adopted
based upon the creases
in their hand, the position of tea
leaves in a cup, the order of a set
of playing cards, the position of falling
wooden sticks, and by many
other methods. Beliefs of this type, when applied consistently,
result in a holistic approach towards life as embodied in the New
Age movement, resting squarely upon a foundation of astrology
(the Aquarian
Age), and incorporating mystical aspects from many cultures.
Consider the following quote:

There is no objective morality in the New Age philosophy.
We should have tolerance for all systems of truth, meaning and
purpose. We should create a world of pure relativism, where
morality and religion are strictly relative to each person's
individual notion of reality itself.—All
About Spirituality

There could be no clearer and more explicit statement
demonstrating the primacy of consciousness in action. But
wait, where have we heard this before? Moral Relativism? Arguments
for tolerance of all systems of belief, regardless of their content?
These are the very bedrock principles of "political
correctness" that drive the policies of the far-left,
progressive collectivists.

Now, when an individual decides to diverge from reality, they
primarily harm themselves, and possibly those with whom they directly
interact. But when the government, which implements and imposes its
actions by force upon all of its citizens, evades reality, then the
collateral damage becomes massive. So do we see evidence of the
primacy of consciousness in play on the political scene? In
spades! A
Confidence Game:

Consider the devastating economic crisis that we currently face.
Are these problems existential, being the inevitable
consequence of specific actions that have been taken, or are our
difficulties social, being merely the byproduct of our
thinking? In the first case, a solution would clearly call for the
abandonment of those policies causing the harm and their replacement
with others based upon an awareness of the actual facts of the
situation. In the latter case, all that would be required to turn the
economy around would be a change in our collective mental attitude.
Which view guides our politicians? Let's see.

"Republicans blame Mr.
Obama for the slump, saying he has issued a blizzard of
regulations and promised future tax increases that have hurt
business and consumer confidence." From
an article in Bloomberg,
by Steven Matthews

"Fed Chairman Ben S.
Bernanke said last week the U.S. is facing "a national
crisis" with the jobless rate at around 9 percent since
April 2009. The European debt crisis, political haggling in the
U.S. and a plunge in stock prices have prompted a drop
in consumer and business confidence that may hurt spending and
hiring. " From
President Obama's October 6, 2011 Press
Conference Transcript

"[T]here is no doubt that
the economy is weaker now than it was at the beginning of the
year. And every independent economist who has looked at this
question carefully believes that for us to make sure that we are
taking out an insurance policy against a possible double-dip
recession, it is important for us to make sure that we are
boosting consumer confidence, putting money
into their pockets, cutting taxes where we can for small
businesses, and that it makes sense for us to put people back to
work doing the work that needs to be done.""

[All emphasis added]

That's quite a preoccupation with people's confidence! In fact, it
is so important to the decision-making of our government officials
that we have an entire organization, The Conference Board, devoted to
producing the Consumer
Confidence Index, a major indicator used by the Federal Reserve
when setting interest rates. According to Wikipedia,
"The Index is calculated each month on the basis of a
household survey of consumers' opinions on current conditions and
future expectations of the economy."

Over and over we hear from the media, as well as from Republicans,
to Bernanke, to Obama, just how important "confidence"
is, and how it is the "lack of confidence" that is
keeping the economy down. The problem is not that past economic
policies have failed. They all believe that it has nothing to do with
business regulations that destroy the ability to plan, compete and
innovate. It's not the burden of increased taxes and expanding
liabilities promised by the full implementation of Obamacare that
throttles business growth, nor is it the legislation that encouraged
overbuilding, spending and lending in the housing market. And it's
not vast entitlement incentives that encourage people to freeload
rather than work. These are merely concrete issues which have no
important economic impact.

Instead, they know that the real problem is that people
don't believe that everything is just fine. If the public
would just change its stinkin' thinkin' and stop worrying
about underwater mortgages, outstanding debt, lack of savings,
evaporating retirement funds, and future job prospects, then they
could get back to the business of carefree spending and the economy
would be back on the tracks! Why? Because our politicians know
exactly what the New Agers know, that reality is nothing more than
the notion that we each hold of it. If we can only come to
believe that good times are just around the corner, then reality will
conform to those desires and there will be no need for government to
back down from any of it's wonderful totalitarian programs and
policies. So look no further in an attempt to understand why, after
two failed rounds of stimulus, Obama doesn't hesitate to propose a
third. What's important is that he wants you to know that he's got
your back, so cheer up. Please!

Yes, people and businesses are indeed very uncertain about the
future, and that uncertainty is having a profound effect upon their
actions. However, it is not their "state of mind" that is
creating the woes we all face — just the opposite. It is an
awareness of the very real problems we face that is justifiably
creating our uncertainty. Our economic and social problems are the
direct result of very specific actions which have, and continue to be
implemented by interventionist politicians in their attempt to
centrally plan not only our economy, but every other aspect of our
lives. And until those policies are reversed, no manipulation of the
public's mind is going to have any effect on the predictable and
inevitable consequences of those policies. There's no escaping it.
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed, and Greece is the poster
child for this inescapable fact. Tell
Me a Bedtime Story:

If there is one thing that our politicians do accurately
understand, it is that after generations of indoctrination in our
public school system, the ability for critical thinking has been
significantly eroded in a large percentage of the population. As a
consequence, they do not worry that their own lack of knowledge,
their own inability to reason critically, or their many
contradictions, failed promises and the bad consequences resulting
from their acts will have much lasting impact on a culture possessing
an extremely short attention span. The public can effectively be
treated as though it were a child.

Today, most voters are unable or unwilling to parse what
politicians say in order to tease apart the salient facts from the
fluff — a task requiring far too much time and energy. And the
general level of illiteracy in history, geography, science, logic and
current events insures that most people are incapable of assembling
for themselves an accurate understanding of any reasonably complex
issue, leaving them open to having that void filled with prepackaged
conclusions supplied by others.

Politicians and the media also know that most people react badly
if they feel that they are being brainwashed or forced to accept
someone elses opinions or analysis. However, the public does like to
be entertained, and this has led to a transformation away from what
was once the simple presentation of facts and positions (news), to
the telling of stories which contain an implied conclusion that is
received more through osmosis than by conscious thought. Obama
clearly understands the power of this approach.

"Throughout the [Suskind]
interview the president seems preoccupied with 'shaping a story
for the American people.' He says: 'The irony is, the
reason I was in this office is because I told a story to the
American people.' But, he confesses, 'that narrative
thread we just lost' in his first years.

"Then [Suskind] asks,
'What's the particular requirement of the president that no one
else can do?' [Obama] answers: 'What the president can do, that
nobody else can do, is tell a story to the American
people' about where we are as a nation and should be."

Noonan then comments:

"Tell a story to the
American people? That's your job? Not adopting good policies? Not
defending the nation? Storytelling?"

[Emphasis added]

But not everyone is as disturbed by this as Noonan. Take, for
example this comment by Ezra Klein while discussing Obama's State of
the Union speech:

"All in all, it was a
good speech. But it was a good speech because it told
the story of a good presidency and an able president."

[Emphasis added]

For Klein, what makes Obama's speech a success has nothing to do
with it's actual content, which must be depreciated to the level of
pointless facts. What is important is its storytelling, and
the emotional impressions that it conveys to the public. Is Obama
actually a good and able president based upon the record of
his administration? Irrelevant. What's important is that he make the
public feel that he is. And here we have another example of
the primacy of consciousness in action. There is no objective
truth regarding anything, including the very nature of of the man
himself! All that matters for Obama is what his perception is in the
eyes of others. When Obama faces an adoring crowd, he basks in the
glory and radiates a sense of content condescension as he senses his
own greatness. But as has been reported on numerous occasions, when
challenged, his self-image evaporates, revealing the nasty reality
that lies within.

Others on the left understand how critically important the
story is for maintaining their particular notion of reality.
If the public forms another image in their head, then the jig is up.
Here is Maureen Dowd expressing those concerns:

"The Obama 'narrative' is
overshadowing this presidency's real stories."

"Sing to me of the Obama
narrative, Muse, the narrative of twists and turns driven time
and again off course."

"Journalists and
politicians know that voters, like everyone else, are hard-wired
to understand the world through stories."

"But now his narrative
has taken on a life of its own."

"'So much of the coverage
and commentary has to do with the narrative, stagecraft, the
political implications of what he [Obama] is doing,' said David
Axelrod, Obama's special adviser for narrative, stagecraft and
the political implications of what the president is doing. 'When
you are president of the United States, the most important thing
is that you cope with the disaster.'"

To which, Jason Horowitz adds:

"Not, that is, the
story line of the disaster."

[Emphasis added]

Despite their best intentions to the contrary, that pesky old
reality continues to rear its head, dashing the ship of consciousness
on the shoals of the primacy of existence. It's
All About the Narrative:

Today's politics is just one good story after another, and when
you wrap them all together with a pretty bow, what you end up with is
the narrative that Dowd mentioned above. Here is what one
reporter has to say about the Obama narrative:

"This is not to give Team
Obama an A-plus across the board on communications or
implementation, but the notion that the President doesn't have a
core philosophy is simply ridiculous. The problem is Obama's
governing narrative does not fit neatly into
traditional boxes."

[Emphasis added]

Now that's funny! Much like the health care bill that Nancy Pelosi
informed us we would have to pass before we could find out what was
in it, Carol is just sure that Obama has a core philosophy, but his
narrative is unfortunately too complex to let us discover
exactly what it might be. Wait, I though that the whole purpose of
the narrative was to feed simplified stories to the public in place
of the complicated facts that were beyond our comprehension. Instead,
this once domesticated narrative has broken free from its corral and
returned to the wild. Giddy up!

The concept of the narrative has now trickled down to the masses —
a tool to be used by even self anointed "working-class"
Wall Street protesters such as Jesse LaGreca, who was recently
interviews on the Sunday panel discussion show, Roundtable.

"At one point, [panel
member Peggy] Noonan posed a question: 'What is your plan? You
going to spend the next six months blocking the Brooklyn Bridge?
Or are you going to harness a movement into political action?'

"LaGreca's response:
'What I find amusing is that now people are looking to us to
solve the political problems, and they should. But I'm not going
to support one party or the other. I'm not going to tell you who
to vote for. But I will encourage you to be a voter. I think we
have succeeded tremendously in pushing the narrative."

To which Taranto remarks:

"And we all know what
backbreaking work it is to push narratives!"

[Emphasis added]

But seriously, exactly what narrative? LaGreca doesn't have
the faintest idea. So, let's turn to the man in the street and see
what sort of story he has to tell:

And here we have reached the end of the line, to witness the
narrative of the primacy of consciousness in all its glory.
Fully detached from the last vestiges of reality, the mind soars
towards new heights and new possibilities, fueled only by those two
magic phrases, "It's what I want" and "That's
what I think."

Reality, I command thee
to bend to my will!After all, if it's good enough for my
president, then it's good enough for me!

The
Choice:

Today, on many fronts we are engaged in an epic battle for our
future. At the most fundamental level, it is a fight for the
metaphysical underpinning of our most precious resource — our
minds. The outcome of this struggle will determine whether we survive
as a civilized culture to pursue the glory represented by the
Citicorp Tower, or are relegated to suffering the Challenger's fate.
Choose you side and then fight for your future as if your life
depends upon it — because it does!

You know, wishing won't make it
so Hoping
won't do it, praying won't do it Religion
won't do it, philosophy won't do it The
supreme court won't do it, the
president and the congress won't do it The
UN won't do it, the H-bomb won't do it, the
sun and the moon won't do it And
God won't do it, and
I certainly won't do it That
leaves you, you'll have to do it

Todd Rundgren, "Fair Warning"

†
Note: In the original version of this article I misattributed the
quote, "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed", to
Ayn Rand, who often quoted it herself, rather than to Francis Bacon.
My thanks to Garret Seinen for pointing out my error.

First published on Mr. Small's blog smallthoughts.com:
http://smallthoughts.com/blog/permalink/0168.html